Abstract:

In Africa, to protect wildlife, big areas of land have been put under state control on the basis of the century-old American National Park model popularly known as the fences-and-fines approach. African governments have benefited and continue to benefit from wildlife because most of the tourism industry there is wildlife-based. However, many conservationists and conservation organizations argue that the fences-and-fines approach has failed to protect wildlife on that continent. In response, several countries have introduced an alternative approach under the name Community based Wildlife Management (CWM) whereby rural communities are expected to be given ownership, or custodianship, and management responsibilities for wildlife.
The CWM approach borrows principles from the concepts of "sustainable development" and "integrated rural development". Underlying this approach are four key assumptions: that (1) national governments are willing to devolve ownership, control and management responsibilities for wildlife to rural communities; that (2) the communities are interested to conserve wildlife; that (3) the communities have the capability to conserve wildlife; and that (4) wildlife conservation and rural development are compatible. The purpose of this thesis is to test CWM against empirical evidence. Its objectives lie in assessing the plausibility of the four assumptions, on the basis of the literature and an 'in-depth' study of the CWM component of Selous Conservation Programme (SCP) in Tanzania.
The findings show that, although CWM helps conservationists to extend boundaries of the relevant protected areas, the four assumptions above are problematic. National governments and their wildlife authorities are not seriously committed to the implementation of the approach. The communities generally are not interested in wildlife conservation and have little capability to control poaching and manage wildlife in a sustainable way. Also, conservation of the potentially destructive and dangerous wildlife species is incompatible with rural economic development. This means that CWM lacks a sound base and cannot achieve long-term wildlife conservation goals.[Show full abstract]